In a previous article, I considered birth order theory and how that could impact negotiation

behaviors. This got me thinking about how much of our personality is learnt and how much

determined by our genes – the classic nature versus nurture debate.

It’s an interesting consideration particularly in the context of how much different behaviors

can be “taught”. How much is it reasonable to expect a person to be able the change their

default response to any given situation? Can one learn to “become someone else” or are we

constrained by the personality we were born with?

Much has been written about the debate and theories abound across the full spectrum of

ideas.

John Locke believed in what is known as tabula rasa, which suggests that the mind begins

as a blank slate. If we align to this notion, everything that we are and all of our knowledge is

determined by our experience.

Empiricists or environmentalists take the view that behaviors and characteristics result

from learning which supports the theory of behaviorism. Behaviorists believe that

all  actions are the result of conditioning. We also have theorists such as  John B.

Watson who believed that people could be trained to do and become anything, regardless of

their genetic makeup.

NATURE VS NURTURE AND NEGOTIATION BEHAVIORS

VINCE BROOK

And then we turn to Freud who stated that events in our childhood have a great influence

on our adult lives, shaping our personality. He believed that parenting was the primary

importance to a child’s development, and family was the most important feature of nurture,

a common theme throughout twentieth century psychology.

And at the nature end of the debate, Robert Ardrey and Desmond Morris both argued the

case for the innate attributes of human behavior being of dominant importance.

There have also been numerous high profile cases and studies on the topic and I found the

recently broadcast documentary “Three Identical Strangers” a fascinating watch. It

documents a true and shocking, previously secret experiment with identical triplets born on

Long Island, New York in 1961 who were separated at birth, brought up not knowing they

had brothers and who were later reconnected through coincidental circumstances in 1980

when 19 years old. Eddy Galland, David Kellman and Robert Shafran were deliberately

placed with three separate families from different socio-economic groups with different

parenting styles all within a 100 mile radius of each other.

David was placed in an upper-class family with a doctor as his adoptive father; he

experienced a rather reserved home life where his father was often unavailable. Eddy was

placed in a middle-class family with a father who was a strong disciplinarian and with

whom he often clashed. And Robert was placed in a working-class home with a grocery-

store owner as a father who had a very warm and jovial disposition.

Despite obvious physical similarities and the fact the brothers formed close bonds post

reconnecting, it was interesting to observe the impact that the differing parental styles and

environment seemed to have on them. All three gravitated towards Robert’s father who was

openly affectionate and the most caring while being the least affluent. All three of the

brothers suffered with mental health issues to varying degrees as did their biological

mother, however it would appear that Robert was better equipped to cope than the others

perhaps due to his upbringing and the impact of nurture.

All fascinating stuff…but what does this mean for negotiators?

Whether personality is influenced by nature or by nurture, the perspective posed in my

previous   article i.e. to recognise that people negotiate with people and the subsequent

requirement to understand what is going on inside the other party’s head, remains hugely

relevant.

If nurture is to be seen as a contributory factor in shaping our personalities, the question I

now raise is this: can the same conclusion be drawn within negotiation? If people’s

personalities can be shaped by conditioning, environment, circumstances or past

experience, can the same be true within negotiation?

So let’s look at an example of influencing or conditioning through behaviors. An

experienced negotiator seeks to gain control of the negotiation and will be able to adopt the

appropriate behaviors to optimize the outcome based on the type of negotiation that they

are conducting. They will make a conscious decision choosing the mindset, approach and

behaviors in order to influence the other party.

Adopting behaviors at odds with your natural personality can be uncomfortable, and to

avoid this being evident through verbal and non-verbal communication it is key to remain

consciously competent - separating your feelings from your behaviors and remaining in

control.

If the other party is behaving in a calculated way, perhaps being cold and tough, do not let

this condition you or impact how you  feel, as this can lead you to behave based on your

feelings.

The definition of conditioning is the process of training or accustoming a person or animal

to behave in a certain way or to accept certain circumstances. In negotiation this can

achieved in many ways, including the art of pre-conditioning. This is the process of sending

either subtle or overt messages in advance of the negotiation designed to manage or shift

your counterparty’s expectations towards your requirements.

Now let’s consider the environment. In sport, you often hear the phrase “home advantage”

which is attributed to the familiarity of the environment but also the psychological effects

supporting fans can have on the competitors or even referees.

In the UK Football Premier League during the 2017-18 season, home teams won 187

matches (49%), away teams won 109 matches (29%) and teams drew in 84 matches (22%).

In the 2017-18 season, 16 of the 20 teams had a higher percentage of home wins versus

away, with Crystal Palace FC the most extreme, achieving 88% of their wins at home.

In terms of your negotiations -  think about where and how the meeting is conducted. Home

advantage has some benefits in that you can control the environment, manage what the

other party see, lay out the room how you want it. Conversely if you visit the other party,

you can take advantage of the travel time to plan and prepare and you can choose to walk

out or leave. And of course, there is always the third option of neutral territory.

Remember too that environment can be used to destabilize the other party by deliberately

making them feel uncomfortable. Watch out for extreme professional flinches such as

banging the table, or  managing the seating to deliberately invading personal space, through

to heating the room to uncomfortably high levels.

Finally, I would like to consider circumstance. People are creatures of habit and all too

frequently I have come across situations where people fail to assess what has changed in the

circumstances between the two parties since their last negotiation.

The pace and scale of change in today’s businesses dictates a need for constant adaptation,

with many organizations reducing their planning horizons as a result. Consider what has

changed in your own business in the last 12 months, weeks or even days and then think

about the other party as well. How will these changing circumstances impact on their

priorities and the way they will approach the negotiation?

Failure to assess this can either sub-optimize the deal due to important information being

missed or result in value-creation opportunities being overlooked. A skilled negotiator will

consider all the relevant factors, making conscious decisions in advance to ensure they are

in charge and can take control of the negotiation process.

So, to summarise - what drives our behavior? Is it nature or nurture or is it a combination

of the two? With so many scientific, cultural and philosophical considerations, a plethora of

hypotheses, views and few if any clear-cut facts - the debate will doubtless continue.

Given that people negotiate with people, it is perhaps unsurprising that negotiation is seen

as both an art and a science. The one thing that is clear is that people are all different, what

drives one person is often different or even the polar opposite to another – we are by both

nature and nurture, nothing if not complex.

From my own perspective, I believe negotiators must consider a combination of the two

schools of thought. We have propensities driven by nature but these are overlaid with time,

experiences and circumstances. How often have you heard it said that someone has

mellowed with age or become more considered after becoming a parent?

Consider that if we believe that nature is the only  driver, it could be seen to limit our

potential. Whereas combining this with nurture suggests that anything is possible…maybe,

just maybe, with the right experience and nurturing I could still be the rock star I always

dreamt of being after all!